zuckerberg. i'm fredricka whitfield. "your money" starts right now. an economy poised to soar is now under attack from its own government. i'm ali velshi. this is "your money." your political leaders are punishing themselves for gross inaction. and they're doing it the only way they know how, by targeting you. four government spending cuts take effect march 1st, what washington has been calling the sequester. it's a stupid name for a stupid thing. >> these cuts are not smart. they are not fair. they will hurt our economy. they will add hundreds of thousands of americans to the unemployment rolls. this is not an abstraction. people will lose their jobs. >> you've heard the big numbers. $1.2 trillion in cults over ten years. $85 billion this year. that's 13% cuts to defense, 9% to everything else. >> we're weeks away from the president's sequester, and the president laid out no plan to

eliminate the sequester and the harmful cuts that will come as a result. >> the forced budget cuts were created during the 2011 debt ceiling debacle. they were passed by congress and signed by the white house. worst-case scenario that would be so bad it would force lawmakers to make a deal. now it's become a poisoned pill that the nation may have to swallow beginning march 1st. and if it happens, 70,000 children kicked off head start programs, putting more than 14,000 teaching and staff jobs at risk. fewer inspections for things like horse meat in your burgers, cuts to mental health programs mean almost 400,000 seriously mentally ill people will go untreated. homeland security drawdowns would result in longer wait times at airports and scaled-back cybersecurity would mean more vulnerability to attacks from hackers in china and at home threatening our

infrastructure. furloughs and layoffs would affect more than 800,000 workers in the defense industry at the same time that north korea is testing a nuclear bomb. cults at the irs would mean fewer tax return reviews and longer waits to get refunds. and more than 100,000 people would be thrown out of emergency housing and onto the streets. one way or another, everyone is going to feel this, while washington continues to play the blame game. >> the bottom line is very simple. the republicans have proposed devastating cuts. >> washington democrats have gotten used to republicans bailing them out of their own lack of responsibility. >> now that we're clear about what is at stake, let's figure out whether this is really going to happen. john king is cnn's chief national correspondent. john, what is the likelihood of this sequester, these forced budget cuts, going into effect starting friday? >> ali, there's no serious

negotiations. so at the moment it looks like these will go in. you heard the from the. he not only wants the bigger deal, deficit reduction, long-term plan, but he said if we can't get that by march 1st we won't, we should do something temporary so the cuts don't take effect. there are some democrats who politically, including people in the white house, we see the president making public appeals but his own people privately say in the short term they have the political upper hand and it would help them and would hurt republicans in congress heading into the 2014 cycle to have this happen. both parties, both sides, if you will, are playing some short-term political calculations. republicans think, look, we've tried to get cuts from the president, gave him tax increases in the last minicrisis, and our only leverage is to get these cuts. athals think some of these predictions are more sky is falling rhetoric and that federal managers will be forced to make tough choices and won't have the most sensitive services cut, but they'll cut other things. it's a game of chicken but at

the moment there are no serious negotiations to have a temporary agreement. >> jean has written a brilliant article everybody should read in which you describe the cuts, i call them a stupid name for a stupid thing. you're more measured than i am. you say they're bad policy and give three specific reasons why. >> it's not the magnitude of the cuts that's the problem, the fact they're indiscriminate. the good will be cut with the bad. the things we need will be cut in equal measure with those things that are bloated programs, duplicative, that have lazy workers. they're treated evenly. athai address the smallest part of the budget, discretionary spending. there's a little mandatory spending but it's a third of the budget and that's been cut pretty much a lot over the next decade. not that it can't be cut more, but the manner in which it's being cut is ridiculous. lastly, even though it's going to reduce deficits, it does nothing to reduce our debt

problem because the debt problem is more in the mandatory piece of the budget, and most of that is protected. >> social security, things like that. >> and medicare. we're getting so old so fast and there are so many of us, health care costs while they have slowed are still growing too fast for us to afford them and cover all the people we've promised to cover to the exten we have promised to cover them. >> john, you mentioned people say there's a sky is falling scenario. i laid out what could happen. there's a possibility some of those things could not happen. people say if i had a business and was told i had to cut 10% across the board, i'd find a way to do it. the fact is we're not really having a discussion about a more effective way to do it. >>no, we're not. again, this is allegedly part of an attempt to get a big deficit reduction grand bargain. they haven't been able to get that grand bargain so they keep doing it in tiny little pieces,

petty, partisan showdowns. the biggest issue here, ali, to get a budget deficit, grand bargain, is a trust deficit. there's a dysfunctional relationship between a democratic president and the republican speaker of the house, who has his own internal problems in the party. what the president is asking republicans is to twice in six weeks agree to tax increases. that is not going to happen. >> right. >> their failure to deal with this six months ago, a year ago, 18 mos ago, two years ago, and to build trust in the relationship along the way is why we have this moment of truth right now. i think most americans who have had to make their own tough choices the past several years in a tough economy, look at washington and say why do i have to ask myself the question, who's telling the truth, how tluf the cuts be. this is the most basic job they're elected to do and they can't do it. >> jean, for those of you who want to understand this well, go to cnn money and read her writing on this. it's great. john king is cnn chief national

correspondent. always good to see you. up next, the forced spending cuts start on friday. time as john said is running out to make a deal in washington. i'll do my best monty hall impression and show you what's behind doors number one, two, and three. every week i ask you to follow me on facebook but in my desperation for followers i've turned to the original facebook friend, mark zuckerberg. transit fares! as in the 37 billion transit fares we help collect each year. no? oh, right. you're thinking of the 1.6 million daily customer care interactions xerox handles. or the 900 million health insurance claims we process. so, it's no surprise to you that companies depend on today's xerox for services that simplify how work gets done. which is...pretty much what we've always stood for. with xerox, you're ready for real business.

a hairline fracture to the mandible and contusions to the metacarpus. what do you see? um, i see a duck. be more specific. i see the aflac duck. i see the aflac duck out of work and not making any money. i see him moving in with his parents and selling bootleg dvds out of the back of a van. dude, that's your life. remember, aflac will give him cash to help cover his rent, car payments and keep everything as normal as possible. i see lunch. [ monitor beeping ] let's move on. [ male announcer ] find out what a hospital stay could really cost you at aflac.com. [ barking ] ♪ come on, boy! [ barks ] ♪ oh, heavenly day here we go. ♪ cha-cha-cha ♪ don't you know that i love ya ♪ ♪ cha-cha-cha-cha-cha ♪ always thinking of ya ♪ all around the world ♪ everybody singin' along ♪ singin' along

♪ fly me to the moon ♪ let me play among the stars ♪ let me see what spring -- ♪ [ birds chirping ] [ male announcer ] with the best lineup of vehicles ever, introducing the new chevrolet. ♪ oh, heavenly day why just go from "a" to "b" when imagination can take you everywhere? ♪ all the clouds blew away chevrolet. find new roads. your doctor will say get smart about your weight. i tried weight loss plans... but their shakes aren't always made for people with diabetes. that's why there's glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. and they have six grams of sugars. with fifteen grams of protein to help manage hunger... look who's getting smart about her weight.

[ male announcer ] glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. i don't want you to think i'm that old but remember "let's make a deal"? ♪ >> it's time for "let's make a deal"! >> a game show is what we've got going on in washington when it comes to the fight over spending cuts, although it looks more like let's not make a deal. allow me to channel monty hall for a moment. i'm going to show you what's behind doors number one, two,

and three. first, door number one, we've got the forced spending cuts, a stupid thing known in washington by its stupid name, the sequester. this is $85 billion in cuts over the next seven months. they take effect friday, march 1st, unless our elected leaders come up with a plan to replace them. we're talking about automatic spending cuts between 9% and 13% to every federal agency including defense. let's go to the next one. door number two, behind door number two is the democratic alternative proposal. senate democrats have offered to replace those forced spending cuts, the sequester, i'll tell you up front, this is another waste of time with zero chance of passing. they're calling for $55 billion in spending cuts, $55 billion in new revenue. most of that new revenue would come from a tax on millionaires, the so-called buffett rule. didn't we just impose tax hikes on the richest americans? i'm sure you all know how easy

that was to get. we drank from that trough. the democrats would delay any spending cuts to 2014 so we can have this fight all over again at the end of the year and not figure out an answer to it. finally, a look behind door number three. simpson/bowles version 2.0. this is an updated plan, a new plan by the team that was headed by democratic businessman erskine bowles and former republican senator allan simpson who chaired president obama's bipartisaniscal commission back in 2010. remember the plan that got thrown under the bus. well, the new plan highlights cuts to the deficit of $2.4 trillion or the next decade. it gets there by raising $600 billion in new tax revenue, cutting $600 billion from medicare and medicaid and $1.2 trillion over ten years in additional spending cuts. diane swonk is chief economist at mesereau financial. alice rev lin was a member of the president's debt commission

and is a senior fellow at the brookings institution. michael tanner is a senior fellow at the cato institute. thanks for being here. michael, you say we should not fear door number one. that is the forced budget cuts, what some people know as the skweser, as it stands, which goes into place on friday if we don't do anything. why? >> well, let's remember that first of all these are cults only in the washington sense that any reduction from future planned increases in spending is a cut. the reality is even if the sequester goes into effect, the federal government will spend more every year. by 2022 it will spend $2 trillion more than it is spending today. we're talking about cuts that are 2.4% of total federal spending. if the federal government can't cut three cents out of every dollar without throwing us into the dark ages, then clearly we're doing something wrong. >> all right, alice rivlin. simpson/bowles, i mentioned that, they're at it again. listen to this. >> to get this done we're going

to have to -- this was clear at the end of last year. we're going to have to push both sides out of their comfort zone. the republicans are going to have to accept more revenue. the democrats are going to have to accept for cuts in our health care spending. that's the only way we can reach a compromise that really makes sense and solves our long-term deficit problem. >> alice, that's erskine bowles, you know him well, simpson/bowles 2.0 proposes $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction versus the $1.5 trillion the president is looking for, also requires tax increases. does this new plan have any chance of going anywhere? >> well, what has a chance of going somewhere if the president and congress can get back together is some version of a grand bargain, and a grand bargain means we have to slow the growth of the entitlements, especially medicare and medicaid. we have to put social security back on a firm foundation. and we have to reform our tax code so it raises some more revenue. that's basically what erskine

bowles and allan simpson are saying, what pete domenici and i said in our report. it's what the president and speaker boehner were working on and came very close to. we need to do that and stop fooling around with this counterproductive thing called the sequester, which is bad macro policy, it would reduce employment when we don't want to, and it is a stupid, dumb -- what can i say -- way to cut near-term spending across the board, program by program, whether it's good or not. >> diane, let's pretend we live in a world where we just have the three doors that i showed you. if you could just choose behind door number one, two, the democratic proposal, or three, simpson/bowles version 2.0, which one makes the most sense to an economist? >> oh, easy, door number three. i used to watch "let's make a deal" and i pick door number three on this one. it does show my age, as well,

but i agree with alice. alice is the queen of budgets here. she really is the one who is incredible on this. and i think it's really important to understand that this is a stupid way to cut budgets. this is dumb. we shouldn't be playing baseball involving the the u.s. economy and most of us living in that sphere, political baseball, on this level. this is just again a repeated mistake of how dysfunctional our government is rather than functional. going towards door three would not only show our government is functional but would show the world we can lead in this arena rather than lag. >> michael, you like door number one, the sequester, the forced budget cuts as they stand, alice and diane prefer door number three, which is simpson/bowles version 2.0. stay where you are. coming up what if i told you there's another possible, a mystery door number four? ♪

♪ [ male announcer ] don't just reject convention. drown it out. introducing the all-new 2013 lexus ls f sport. an entirely new pursuit. [ jen garner ] what skincare brand is so effective... so trusted...

so clinically proven dermatologists recommend it twice as much as any other brand? neutrogena®. recommended by dermatologists 2 times more than any other brand. now that's beautiful. neutrogena®. ♪ then you're going to love this. right now they're only $14.95! wow-a grt deal just got a whole lot better. hurry. $14.95 won't last.

in washington, our elected leaders are playing let's make a deal or let's not make a deal as the friday deadline for forced budget cuts approaches. democrats have offered an al tern toi replace those cuts but it just delays them further and also calls for $55 billion in new taxes, which is politically going to be hard to achieve. i will probably grow hair before that plan goes anywhere in congress. then there's door number three. simpson/bowles version 2.0. it has new taxes and cuts to those precious entitlement programs, basically something for both parties to hate. maybe none of these is the answer. alice rivlin, diane swonk, michael tanner. alice, you worked on a committee put together, a commission put together by the president that did things slightly differently than simpson/bowles. are there alternatives? you said a version of simpson/bowles to door number four that could be palatable to

both sides that might actually get done? >> i was on simpson/bowles. so i think that's basically the right thing. but the point is you need to do two things at once. what is driving federal spending are, as you look ahead, are the increases in medicare and medicaid and social security. that's because we're getting older and because medical care costs are rising faster than the economy can grow. so we need to slow the growth of those benefit programs. but we can't do it all on the benefit side. we can't absorb that many older people and their health care without some tax increases. fortunately, we could reform the tax code, make it fairer and simpler, which is what simpson/bowles proposed, and still raise some more revenue. so i think door number four is any version of the grand bargain. simpson/bowles is a good one. it isn't the only way you can do

this, but the two essential elements are the tax reform and the entitlement reform. >> michael, let me ask you about that, though. alice rivlin has been in government, knows how to run budget, knows all of these thing, and she's still talking about a grand bargain. the reality is we heard about that grand bargain, heard it talked about in 2011 for the budget, heard it again during the fiscal cliff drama a couple months ago. has that opportunity come and gone? >> well, the problem with these grand bargains is they always involve tax increases today and promises that someday, way off in the future, we'll cut spending. the reality is of course the tax cuts are immediate -- or tax hikes are immediate and perm negligent and the spending cuts are ephemeral and way off in the future. >> let me stop you. this is like the criticism of stimulus. right? the fact that it didn't work the way some people wanted it to work doesn't mean that in concept it can't work. why can't we have a grand bargain that says tax cults

today or not increases today but they come in over five years or ten years? why couldn't we make a big deal rather than just not trust that we'll never be able to make a deal? >> we could have a unicorn hunt, too. the reality is nobody ever wants to cut spending. we have not cut spending. the fact is for all the president talks about $1.5 trillion in spending cults so far, we are spending more this year than we did in his first budget. >> michael, that -- >> the reality is spending is going up. >> allison, unicorn hunt or not? >> i'm for the unicorn because i think we can do it. it isn't a question of doing something now and something later. you have to change the law on both the entitlements and the tax code. >> right. >> and we tind to observe laws. for example, when we changed the social security law in 1938 and raised the retirement age, we abided by it, nobody noticed really. the retirement age is still

going um in accordance with that 1983 law. it will happen. >> diane? >> you know, i have to agree with alice. i'm on alice's side here. i think reforms to the tax code are critical at increasing the efficiency of the u.s. economy as well. we know the corporate tax code is a mess. the business roundtable shown up at the white house and supported corporate tax reforms with the president. so there clearly is bipartisan support in that arena. we know the tax code doesn't work. i do think that's important. and we know the bulk of the problem is in entitlements. frankly, why can't we get into some things eating around the edges even more marginally in the near term like slowing down the pace of social security growth or means testing if wealthy people don't need social security, then they don't get it. i mean, these are the things that are pragmatic approaches that don't hurt the economy up front. we don't want to add too much pain. we've seen what that means in europe. we want to avoid the european experience, and we actually do have a little bit of time. but there's no time like the

present to make the plans for the future. >> michael, you're outnumbered, but i hope that won't stop you from coming and playing let's make a deal. michael tanner, diane swonk, and alice rivlin. coming up next, the next big hurdle, jean talked about this, president obama hasn't submitted a new budget so congress will have to vote on another resolution to continue the existing budget or face a government shutdown at the end of march. can't get anything done in washington. and mark zuckerberg is worth $12 billion, but some questions are even too big for him. >> you're asking questions that are a bit above my pay grade. >> after building the world's biggest social network, his founder has a new quest. who do you think i am, quicken loans? ♪ at quicken loans, we won't make you wait for it. our efficient, online system

allows us to get you through your home loan process fast. which means you'll never have to beg for a quick closing. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. bonkers, look at me when i'm talking to you.

so far we've been talking about the poor spending cuts known as the sequester. it's a stupid name, but there's a good reason we're talk about it. as you can see on this calendar, the sequester deadline, the forced budget cuts, go into effect start ong friday. but a more important deadline may be the one on march 27th. that is when the so-called continuing resolution on the latest federal budget expires. if congress doesn't vote for another continuing resolution, the u.s. government could shut down. in a perfect world, the federal budget is laid out in february every year by the president, should be passed by mid-april every year, but congress has gone close to four years without agreeing to a new budget. the last full budget was passed

in april of 2009. under normal circumstances, the president submits the annual budget proposal to congress in february for the fiscal year that starts on october 1st. based on that, a budget resolution is written, deliberations and hearings take place, amendments are made, the complete budget is supposed to be passed by april the 15th. but these are not normal times. when congress doesn't pass a budget resolution, the previous year's resolution stays in effect. you need a so-called continuing resolution approved to do that. that continues funding for federal agencies at their existing levels. that way the government doesn't need to shut down just because your elected officials won't agree on a new annual budget. there have been some political stunts to make it seem like budgets were being presented to congress and failing in the past few years. those budgets were put forward for an up-or-down vote without amendments. that is not how budgets get passed in government or in

business. it never has been, it probably never will be. there's supposed to be disagreement and back and forth between the sides. we've just taken all of that too far. we've become too uncompromising. both sides have essentially given up on trying to do it the right way. that doesn't matter at this point because president obama delayed submitting a new budget proposal to congress this month by blaming the fiscal cliff battle in december for putting his team behind schedule. that means congress has to choose to vote to extend another continuing resolution before march 27th or we face a government shutdown. last week i talked to senator johnny isakson, a republican from georgia, on this show. he said a republican shutdown would be a bad idea. >> making sure social security checks are delivered is important. but it's a better idea to run the country the way it's supposed to be done. if you have to change the tax code, do it but in the context of the macro sense not the

micro. >> can't agree more. david gergen, cnn senior political analyst and professor of public service and director of the center of public leadership at the harvard kennedy school and ron brownstein, executive director at the "national journal" magazine in washington. good to see you. ron, republicans could push president obama to push further spending cuts by threatening to shut down the government in the run-up to upcoming deadlines. we've heard one leading republican senator, john sni isaacson, say it's a bad idea, but could we be headed down the road to a shutdown? >> i think we are probably not. there are certainly republicans who have talked about that, but the consensus of sentiment seems to be moving on a different path now. i think what republicans are looking at more now is taking the sequester cuts and then codifying them in, as you know, a continuing resolution to extend the government funding through the rest of the year, and in fact daring the democrats to shut down the government by refusing to accept those large

cuts in both discretionary and defense spending. >> david, you have served four u.s. presidents, including three republicans -- nixon, ford, and ronald reagan -- as well as an 18-month stint as counselor to democratic president bill clinton. you left the clinton administration before his showdown with republicans in congress that led to the last government shutdown in 1995-1996 when the public largely blamed then speaker newt gingrich and the republicans for that fiasco. let's assume republicans don't want a repeat of that this time around. the just the threat of the shutdown enough to weigh on the calculations made by both sides? >> it may well be that the combination of the sequester and the continuing resolution, the shutdown, will force people back to the table. i think there's a good possibility of that. i agree with ron brownstein that' we're very unlikely to have a shutdown. but i would caution this, ali.

we've had 17 shutdowns since 1976. they're usually quite brief. they're blips on the screen. the one we had that you're recalling, '95-96, was a much more serious shutdown. it was a showdown between president clinton and newt gingrich and the president won. but what was very important about that was it cleared the air. the shutdown and the collapse on the republican side led to an era of bipartisanship that we really got some things done. president clinton has been the first to say that. shutdown can have a cleansing effect. the hope is that the combination of sequester and the prospect of a shutdown will have a cleansing effect here now. nothing else so far has. maybe this will. >> david and ron, thanks very much for joining us. i suspect i'll be seeing more of you two guys in the coming week. imagine if you don't think of the taxes you pay as a waste but rather as an investment for which you get a return. far from being a burden on your proverbial grandchildren, the

taxes you pay could actually end up making them money. i'll explain. i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i work for one. that company, the united states postal service® works for thousands of home businesses. because at usps.com® you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. i can even drop off free boxes.

i wear a lot of hats. well, technically i wear one. the u.s. postal service®, no business too small. i have to know the weather patterns. i upgraded to the new sprint direct connect. so i can get three times the coverage. [ manager 2 ] it's like working in a giant sandbox. with all these huge toys. and with the fastest push-to-talk... i can keep track of them all. [ male announcer ] upgrade to the new "done" with access to the fastest push-to-talk and three times the coverage. now when you buy one kyocera duraxt rugged phone for $69.99, you'll get four free. other offers available. visit a sprint store, or call 855-878-4biz. [ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on an ancient burial ground. [ ghosts moaning ] surprise -- your car needs a new transmission. [ coyote howls ] how about no more surprises? now you can get all the online trading tools you need

without any surprise fees. ♪ it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

budgets, debt ceilings, government shutdowns, everything we've been talk about during this show comes down to the way government spends its money or your money and the way it spends the money has changed drastically in the last 50 year, and that is part of the problem. entitlement programs have risen from being one-third to two-thirds of government spending since the 1960s. today about half of american households receive some kind of government benefit in the form of medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment

insurance, and other transfer payments. transfer payments. that's a term that economicis use to describe money that's moved by government from one taxpayer to another citizen in a way that fuels consumption. there's a reason it's become all about continue sum, by the way. to help our economy moving, people have to buy the products and services businesses provide. right now the u.s. government uses taxes to take money from people who got more of it and put it in the hands of people who have less of it so more people spend, thereby fuelling the economy. people with lower incomes tend to spend any incremental money they get in a manner that is more beneficial to the economy than rich people do. that's a fact. in the short term, it's economically sensible to put money in the hands of less wealthy americans, but with a structurally weak economy, with an aging population, and when we can't create enough jobs for people who need them, more and more money is being transferred from the rich to the poor. it's gone from millions of dollars to trillions of dollars in the last 50 years.

the government is spendingless a less and less of its income, your money, on so-called investments and more on transfer payments for consumption. what if we turned the clock back somehow to a time when most tax dollars went toward investment, things like infrastructure, education, and research. if we spent half as much as we spent on transfer payments we would have a world-class infrastructure that would bring companies and jobs back to america. fareed zakaria is the host of "fareed zakaria: gps." medicare, medicaid, social security, they make up more than 40% of the federal budget right now. compare that with 2% spent on education, 3% on transportation infrastructure. we're focusing a lot on older generations. and i'm not making the argument that we shouldn't be. but how do we make this switch back to a country that invests in the future? >> you laid the issues out brilliantly, ali. the issue is not that there's something inherently bad in

doing what we're doing. it creates a safety net, a fair and decent society. secondly, it has economic value. poorer people, middle-class people, tend to spend more and therefore fuel the economy. rich people tend to save and invest that money. but the problem is because it has become such a large share of the pie, we are not investing. if you look at the big problem we face in the united states over the last 30 year, it has been -- none of those issues, regulation. it has been a dramatic deficit in investment. our spending on infrastructure as a percentage of gdp is down. our spending on science is down. our spending on technology is down. figuring out how to rebalance this is the key. the good news is we don't need that much money for investment. we're spending trillions as you say on consumption, on transfer payments. if we could move some of that money into education, science, infrastructure, it would have a big bang. >> in the context of the current

debate we're having, some people focused on waste and mismanagement in government. but, in fact, this is the bigger long-term issue. we've got an older population, an aging population, and we need to somehow figure out a way to balance this out. it's become politically charged to have this conversation. so when i say -- when people say i don't want to run up bills that my grandchildren are going to end up pay, what's the best counterargument? >> i think what people have to understand is there are two kinds of spending as you point out. if you're running up a bill by building bridges that will last 150 years and fuel economic activity, imagine, you know, what the interstate highway system did to this country. running up bills like that, borrowing the money from the chinese, that's all fine because that pays off tenfold over the long run. >> what about the argument that we don't want government making those decisions, it will just end up being pork, they'll just end up giving it to their district or what a lot of

republicans say, this is just code for feeding the unions? >> take a look at what infrastructure has done to the u.s. economy. take a look at how it's been built. by and large, america has actually done pretty well on that front. if you look at the defense department and the way it has funded research, the kind of research that produced the internet, you know, the odd thing about this talk about american government is look at the stimulus bill. we had this huge stimulus bill. there haven't been in scandals associated with it. one, solyndra, a case where the chinese lowered the prices on their solar energy, therefore driving our guys out of business, but by and large the stuff has not been as pork filled as people make it out to be. and the crucial issue is, you know, there's a certain amount of waste in the private sector, as well. there is going to be waste. i don't pretend otherwise. but what is the alternative? are we not going to modernize our energy grid, our air traffic control? you know, the issue here is almost one of deferred maintenance. if you leave your boiler and

it's leaking at home, that is not fiscally prudent, because one day it will explode. and guess what, the bill will be much higher. when these bridges in america start crumbling, and they are beginning to crumble, the bill will be much higher and we're still going to have to pay it. >> great conversation. fareed is the host of "fareed zakaria: gps." apple has sold more than 300 million of these so far, the ipho iphone. but it's getting crushed by google and its stock price is getting hammered. but did you know there's a cereal that's recommended by doctors? it's post shredded wheat. recommended by nine out of ten doctors to help reduce the risk of heart disease. post shredded wheat is made with only one ingredient: one hundred percent whole grain wheat, with no added sugar or salt. try adding fruit for more health benefits and more taste in your bowl. it's the ideal way to start your heart healthy day. try post shredded wheat. this has been medifacts for post shredded wheat.

it's lots of things. all waking up. connecting to the global phenomenon we call the internet of everything. ♪ it's going to be amazing. and exciting. and maybe, most remarkably, not that far away. we're going to wake the world up. and watch, with eyes wide, as it gets to work. cisco. tomorrow starts here.

do you know what this is? of course you do. apple has sold more than 300 million iphones since it introduced them back in, believe it or not, 2007. but this may be less familiar. even so, google's android operating system has been crushing the iphone lately. google says 1 million new android devices are activated each day. handset makers shipped 160 million of them last quarter.

apple just shipped 48 million phones that operate on its operating system. google is winning the stock price war as well. in the last year, google's stock price is up around 30%. that's the green line. while apple is down more than 10%. i want to bring in my good friend richard quest for a little q&a. today's question, richard, interpret it as broadly as you like, google or apple? and in keeping with today's theme, i have a special bell you can see here on the iphone. so control room when i ring this, give me 60 seconds on the clock. there we go. am is bumping into unrealistic expectations that couldn't continue forever, richard, if apple has one talent, it is showing us the next big thing before we even knew we wanted it and then making buckets, buckets of money on it. it's ancient history now, but back in the '90s, richard, i wasn't born yet, investors had left apple for dead. the company roared back to life,

brought us all sorts of things we did not know we needed -- the ipod, iphone, itunes. history shows all of it will probably take -- you know, it will gain speed again if they come up with new product. maybe it's the apple wristwatch that will turn the doubters into believers. but at the same time, ap ple is reaching out to budget consumers with consumers like the ipod mini, setting it up for growth in places like china weather a growing middle class. google seems to be following apple in the innovation department. it has plenty of products like youtube, gmail, chrome browser, but the money comes from ads. not sure that's sustainable, richard. >> the if the entire object of ali's diatribe was to list the products, then we're all much better informed. but we're here to talk act that share price. and you have to remember a share price is the reflection of the

company, not only its earnings, but investor beliefs for future growth. and here it's all on the downside for apple. apple has a stench about it. nobody can quite say what or why, but there's a feeling that there's something nasty at the back of the fringe that needs to be rooted out. google, on the other hand, which doesn't have that same fierce competition that say apple has from android, google has competitors of its own but it still remains the industry standard on surge. it still has many core markets that it's holding on to, much tighter than apple in its own domain. the share price, i repeat, ali, is a reflection of earnings and investor sentiment. and if you look at that share price now, it's not surprising they're going whoop in opposite directions. >> topping 8$800 a share for th first time this past week.

>> and, and brokerage analysts suggesting it could hit 1,000. but remember, markets are not like a swiss clock. they overshoot one way, and then the other. stow look for speculation and bubbles. >> we should look -- that advice spreads to the broader market, as well. richard, always a pleasure to see you. you must say, my bell is quite nice, isn't it? all right. apple, google and facebook are rivals, but now some of the biggest names in tech are teaming up to fight disease. my interview with marc zuckerberg is next on "your money."

i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people

looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. more "likes." more tweets. so, beginning today, my son brock and his whole team will be our new senior social media strategists. any questions? since we make radiator valves wouldn't it be better if we just let fedex help us to expand to new markets? hmm gotta admit that's better than a few "likes." i don't have the door code. who's that? he won a contest online to be ceo for the day. how am i supposed to run a business here without an office?! [ male announcer ] fast, reliable deliveries worldwide. fedex.

mark zuckerberg took facebook from dorm room startup to the world's largest social network. it made him rich and he became a billionaire at the age of 23. zuckerberg is worth oornd $12 billion. he's not sitting on his money. last year mark and his wife priscilla chan gave away $500 million, that makes him america's second most generous donor behinden buffett. he's teamed up with some of the biggest names in tech like sergey brin, apple chairman art levenson, and venture capital lift yuri milner to launch is the break through prize in life sciences recognizing curing disease and extending human

life. this many week it awarded 11 scientists $3 million each almost three times as much as the $1.1 million nobel prize. i spoke to him and ann would he jis ski, the founder of the genetics company 23 and me and the wife of google co-founder sergey brin. i asked zuckerberg why the world needs another prize. >> society has a lot of heroes for a lot of different things, but we don't have enough heroes who are scientists and researchers and engineers. these people are just doing great work. and what we're trying do is set up this institution and do what we can from the sidelines of that work to reward and recognize the amazing stuff that all these folks are doing to cure diseases and expand our understanding of humanity. and improve all these people's lives in different ways. we feel if we can recognize that work that it can inspire more folks to do similar folks, as well. >> ann, when you announced the first round of winners, of them, i could probably col identify or

recognize two or three of the things they're noted for doing. they're working on highly specific things. this isn't the 50 years later rewarding somebody for finding a cure to cancer. these are incremental improvements really changing people's lives. >> that's a really important distinction about this prize and what we want to the encourage. we want to encourage people to take risk, make major breakthroughs and be rewarded in the near term after that. for some of these individuals, their discoveries were recent and they've done recent things that have been really significant. we want to get people in the life sciences to actually think big, take risk and then recognize that there's a major reward that could come their way. >> how much can we extend life and how much should we in your opinion? >> you're asking questions a bit above mark. i'm not sure a lot of people in the world are above your pay grade. just saying. >> the work these folks are

doing, they're each taking big risks and taking on big projects, but each of these is a step forward for humanity. so these questions where we're going to be in 10, 20 years, they're important. but i can guarantee you that people who are sick or who might have these issues want the cures these folks are working on on building. and in order to get more of the best people and the smartest people who are going through school today to work on these problems, to help cure these diseases, i really hope that the work that we're doing here today can just be an institution. >> like the nobel prize? it's a thinging? people talk about the break through prize, somebody got awarded it, that's a big deal. >> this prize isn't really about the people winning it today. it's about the college and grad students are in the lab trying to figure out what they should be researching. it's about younger kids who are still trying to figure out what they want to be when this he grow up. >> so you've got ann and sergei from google, art levenson from

apple, chairman of apple. you've got uri milner on this group that have has financed a lot of companies you might think of as competitors. this is sort of the face of the new technology. you're not all people who normally work together in business. you're kind of competitors. >> yeah, i think all these companies work together more than people think. but the big thing here is that you know, science and technology are very closely related. and when you're building these information technology companies, the market rewards you and you can make a lot of money. a lot of folks who are doing such extraordinary work in science don't have the same opportunity, and because of that, i think it would be a shame if a lot of folks were growing up trying to figure out what they want do don't choose to go into such critical work because of that. if by having these prizes we can give incentive and can kind of make some of these folks a little more well-known as figures that some younger students want to grow up to be like, then we're doin